HOUSE BILL NO. 129 "An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting, or trapping licenses, tags, or permits; relating to penalties for certain sport fishing, hunting, and trapping license violations; relating to restrictions on the issuance of sport fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses; creating violations and amending fines and restitution for certain fish and game offenses; creating an exemption from payment of restitution for certain unlawful takings of big game animals; relating to commercial fishing violations; allowing lost federal matching funds from the Pittman - Robertson, Dingell - Johnson/Wallop - Breaux programs to be included in an order of restitution; adding a definition of 'electronic form'; and providing for an effective date." 2:07:22 PM Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee heard HB 129 earlier in the day. There had been a discussion on Section 3(h). The committee had worked with the Department of Law and Legislative Legal Services to have an amendment drafted. Representative Wilson asked if someone from the Civil Division was online. 2:08:17 PM SUSAN COX, WORKERS' COMPENSATION ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), introduced herself. Representative Wilson had a question regarding a liability issue in HB 129. The example given in the earlier meeting was her being pulled over in her boat by a trooper, handing over her phone that contained her fishing license, and the trooper dropping the phone into the water. The bill indicated the trooper would have no liability for the phone. She asked if the committee was reading the section correctly referring to the bill on page 2, line 25. She asked if the language provided immunity. Ms. Cox responded that the language in the bill would provide immunity from any liability regarding damage to the devise which would include dropping it in the water. Representative Wilson thought there should be some responsibility on the part of the trooper. If someone had their fishing license and hadn't broken the law, she wondered if there was a way to take care of the issue. Ms. Cox responded that the way the bill was written, it provided immunity precluding any lawsuit. The language could be changed to eliminate the immunity leaving a possibility open. She understood there was an amendment that had been drafted to prove an exception to the immunity for intentional misconduct on the part of a peace officer. Representative Wilson would wait to further address the issue until the amendments were brought up. Representative Grenn MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30- GH1687\J.1 (Bullard, 4/2/18) (copy on file): Page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 5: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Grenn explained that the amendment deleted material that was added by the House Judiciary Committee regarding the verification of low income licensees - people who were looking to get the low-income price for their sport fishing license or hunting license. Initially, he thought the amendment was a good addition. However, in talking with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the department would need to hire short-term non-permanent staff to cover the peak season from June to September. Since the department had already purchased their paper license stock, they would have to buy and print new stock costing the state an additional $31,000. Additionally, they would have to enhance their computer system in the amount of $8,000. He referred to the fiscal note with component number 479. He thought Ms. Petraborg could provide verification. Fraud had not been a problem in the past when using these types of licenses. In talking with the department, he reported they were not entirely sure that external vendors like Walmart or Sportsman's Warehouse would be able to sell low-income licenses due to their inability to verify income levels. He thought the addition in the House Judiciary Committee grew government too large and increased the fiscal note for the bill. He opined the state could do better without it. Representative Kawasaki referred to page 2, line 27. He wondered about the deletion of material. He asked if the current costs for resident hunting, trapping, and sportfishing licenses were deleted. Representative Grenn responded that it ended on page 3, line 5. 2:13:30 PM Representative Kawasaki relayed that starting on page 2, line 28 it showed the resident hunting, trapping, and fishing sport license fee at $75. Following the fee, the bill talked about how a person could obtain a lower-income license on page 2, line 29. It also outlined that proof of eligibility was required. He suggested that by deleting the section, it would also delete residential hunting, trapping, and sport fishing licenses and the ability to have a lower-income fee. Representative Pruitt commented that the language that was contained was already part of statute. He indicated that only the highlighted portions on page 2 reflected the changes made in the House Judiciary Committee. He suggested that by deleting it, the committee would be deleting those changes. The committee would not be deleting the statute that currently existed. He pointed to Section 4 where it stated that AS 16.05.034(a)(6) was amended to read. It meant that the current statute was "X" and it was being amended with the black line. Representative Grenn thought it reverted back to current statute. Representative Wilson was unsure how to get a low-income license. She wondered if someone had to apply in person to DFG. Representative Grenn deferred to Ms. Petraborg. 2:15:12 PM CAROL PETRABORG, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), responded that currently, the low-income licenses could be purchased at any DFG vendor. There was an affidavit on the back of the license where the licensee signed verifying that they met the low-income requirements. If the changes in the amendment were adopted, then the vendors would no longer be able to issue licenses. It would move all of the traffic to DFG where the department would have to verify the low- income limits just like the department did with the permanent identification cards. It could deter people from purchasing a license. It would certainly slow down the process, and there would be associated costs. Representative Wilson asked about signing an affidavit. Ms. Petraborg responded that the department did not typically verify the information. However, they could be asked to present the documentation by a trooper in the field. Historically, the department had not seen gross negligence in the issuance of such licenses. There were approximately 18,000 licenses sold each year. Representative Wilson asked if a person would have to carry proof of income with them while fishing. Ms. Petraborg replied that the troopers might ask such questions. She was unclear about a timeframe when the information would have to be presented. She did not believe the person would have to have low-income verification on their person. Representative Wilson asked someone from DFG to review the process. She was fairly certain troopers would not be asking income questions in the field. She did not have to have an explanation in the current meeting. Vice-Chair Gara wondered about the meaning of "Delete all material." He thought that all that would be deleted were the changes. He asked Representative Grenn to triple check the issue before the bill was heard on the floor. Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30- GH1687\J.3 (Bullard, 4/4/18) (copy on file): Page 2, line 21: Delete "30" Insert "90" Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion. Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2. Representative Wilson OBJECTED. Vice-Chair Gara spoke to his amendment to Amendment 2. Page 2, line 20: Delete "in" Insert "to" 2:20:31 PM AT EASE 2:20:48 PM RECONVENED Vice-Chair Gara noticed when reviewing the bill, in order to not be convicted, a person would have to present proof in the office. A person might live in a community without an office. He was hoping the person could send the information to an office. The purpose of the amendment was to also be able to send the proof to an office rather than having to get on an airplane to travel to an office. Representative Wilson asked if the committee could hear from the department. Co-Chair Foster asked if Ms. Petraborg was available. 2:22:15 PM COLONEL STEVE HALL, WILDLIFE TROOPER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), reported that the change from "in" to "to" on line 20 would satisfy Vice-Chair Gara's intent. It was essentially what happened presently. Representative Wilson asked if someone would be able to send the information to any office to show proof of a license on the date that they did not have their verification with them. Colonel Hall responded that it would allow them to send the information to an office of the arresting agency such as an office of the Alaska Wildlife State Troopers. Representative Wilson had hoped the answer would be, "yes." Colonel Hall responded that it was essentially a "yes" answer, however, the difference between the DFG and the Alaska Wildlife Troopers had to do with transfer of information. The transfer of information would have to go to an office of the arresting agency based on the rest of the sentence. Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was ADOPTED. Vice-Chair Gara presented closing comments for Amendment 2. He suggested that 90 days was a reasonable amount of time to present information. Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 as amended was ADOPTED. Representative Pruitt MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on file): Page 2, line 26: Delete "any" Following "devise": Insert, "except that a piece officer may be liable for civil damages that are the result of the peace officer's intentional misconduct" Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Pruitt explained that the amendment would not provide complete and total immunity in a case where there was misconduct. He asked the colonel whether a peace officer would take physical hold of an electronic devise displaying a person's license. He asked the colonel to distinguish between the point of viewing a license versus a point of search. He provided a hypothetical scenario. Colonel Hall replied that a sequence of events could be that an individual holds up their device to show their license to a trooper keeping it in their hands. It might be that an individual handed the device to a trooper to view the screen. Depending on the size, the picture might have to be expanded. The circumstance could occur either way where it was in the trooper's hand or the owner's hand. He deferred to the Department of Law. 2:28:22 PM AARON PETERSON, ATTORNEY IV, CRIMINAL OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROSECUTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), replied that in a scenario where a trooper was holding someone's devise to view a license and a text came through saying that a person took way over limit and the trooper happened to know that person was down river, the trooper could use the text as information to initiate proceedings against the person that sent the text. It was akin to a plain view search. It would be different if a trooper were to go into the text messages without authorization. If someone was worried that their friends were going to start texting, they could put the phone in airplane mode or take whatever remedial measures that might be necessary. Representative Pruitt asked whether it was typical practice for an office to take a device into their hands or to allow the owner to hold the device for them. Mr. Peterson responded that it depended on how DFG developed the electronic license. Currently, there was no electronic license, therefore, there was nothing to give to a trooper. He could not speak from past experience what had happened. A picture of a license was not technically a legal license. He reported there had been several proposals talked about in the bill and in committee. One of the ideas was to have a QR code that popped on a person's phone that then the troopers or just a picture of a license. Everything in between the two ideas have been discussed. It would really depend on what was developed such as an application. He spoke about limited or no bandwidth being a challenge. Representative Pruitt surmised that not enough was known yet. He thought the amendment did not do everything he needed but was better than what was currently in the bill. At least if there was some intentional misconduct, the owner of the device would have some sort of recourse. He asked members to support his amendment. 2:32:38 PM Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 3 was ADOPTED. Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the fiscal notes for HB 129. He began with an indeterminate fiscal note, OMB Component 3134, from the Department of Administration (DOA). The appropriation was Shared Services of Alaska and the allocation was accounting. There was a slight change in fines and restitution. The Department of Administration had a roll in receiving the fines. The fiscal note was indeterminate because people had never really kept track of small amounts of money in the past. Representative Wilson understood that no one kept track, but she relayed that the indeterminate portion was in the operating expenditure rather than the fund source. She did not believe the bill changed such that the department would be adding any positions or needing any extra money. She could understand if the indeterminate portion was part of revenue without any extra revenue. Vice-Chair Gara responded that Representative Wilson was correct. The explanation had to do with a change in revenue. However, the fiscal note had to do with a change in costs. He agreed it was correct to ask why, because it was not explained in the fiscal note. He wanted to hear from DOA. 2:35:03 PM SYLVAN ROBB, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, explained that the fiscal note was indeterminate because the role that Shared Services played in the bill was that when fines and fees were assessed by the court and not collected, they were transferred to Shared Services of Alaska, which did debt collection for the State of Alaska. Currently, all of the fines and fees came over in the aggregate. The department did not track which ones came from DFG or other departments where people might accrue a debt to the State of Alaska. The department had no way of knowing what percentage was from DFG, therefore, she did not know what the increase might be as the result of the bill. Representative Wilson asked if it was possible DOA would have to hire additional positions in 2020. She wondered if the department saw any of the revenue. Ms. Robb responded that debt to the State of Alaska that was collected was returned to the general fund. The funds did not go to the division or to the department that was owed. In the case of the fiscal note, the fines and fees assessed by the court system did not go to DFG. Representative Wilson wondered if DOA would have to make a budget request for additional people in the future. Ms. Robb responded that they currently used a vendor to collect debts. They operated on a fee basis. If they needed to hire additional positions to collect the additional debts, there would be no costs to the state. They took a portion of whatever debt was collected. Representative Wilson suggested that if a vendor was being used, then the number would not be indeterminate. If the vendor was basing it on fees there would not be any cost to DOA. She thought that was what Ms. Robb had just stated. Ms. Robb replied that DOA did not know what the impact would be since she did not know the impact of the bill. Her understanding was that the idea behind the increase in fines was to deter people from breaking DFG's rules. There were several unknowns in terms of what the impact might be. Representative Wilson wondered how a vendor would be impacted if the state was utilizing a vendor and the vendor was charging a fee. She would do more research. Vice-Chair Gara indicated that if the bill passed, no money would be put into the budget, whether the fiscal note was indeterminate or zero. He thought the fiscal note was okay.it sounded like there would be no change in operating costs for DOA. However, there might be a change in the revenue received. He suggested Ms. Robb took a look at the fiscal note when the bill moved along. He thought the indeterminate portion needed to be in the revenue part rather than the operating part. Ms. Robb replied that the department would be happy to reexamine the fiscal note. Vice-Chair Gara moved to fiscal note, OMB Component 479, from DFG. The appropriation was for Statewide Support Services and the allocation was for administrative services. He thought the fiscal note might be amended based on the amendment from Representative Grenn. It had to do with the administration of the low-income license fees. He thought there might be a new fiscal note that followed the bill. Vice-Chair Gara reviewed fiscal note 4, OMB Component 2746, a zero fiscal note from the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The appropriation was for the Alaska State Troopers and the allocation was for the Alaska Wildlife Troopers. Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the last fiscal note, OMB component 2175, from DPS. The appropriation was for Statewide Support Services, and the allocation was for the Commissioner's Office. The note had a zero fiscal impact. 2:40:04 PM Representative Tilton referred to page 6 of the bill which indicated an inflation proofing measure every 5 years. She did not see this noted in any of the fiscal notes. In a previous bill the finance committee heard there was a cost for inflation proofing in a fiscal note. She did not see a cost for inflation proofing in the current bill. She wondered if the cost was being absorbed. Vice-Chair Gara asked if Ms. Petraborg could look into Representative Tilton's point of whether fines could be changed over time. He wondered whether there needed to be any statement in the DGF fiscal note about revenue in later years. Ms. Petraborg responded that they were all criminal in nature. Therefore, none of the funds would go to DFG. Rather, the funds would go into the general fund. Vice-Chair Gara asked Representative Tilton to restate her question. Representative Tilton relayed that on page 6 of the bill it stated that beginning on July 2023 and every 5 years thereafter, the department recalculated and updated by regulation the restitution amounts provided. Inflation proofing occurred every 5 years. In a previous bill heard by the committee, there was a cost to inflation proofing. She wondered if such a cost would be shown on the fiscal notes. Mr. Peterson responded that he did not have any information about the fiscal note or about what it would cost to adjust for inflation. It was his understanding that there was a method established in SB 91 [Legislation passed in 2016 - Short Title: OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS] for crimes that involved a financial threshold. He presumed the same sort of method would be utilized. 2:42:39 PM AT EASE 2:43:07 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Foster directed his staff to contact the creators of the fiscal notes to see if an adjustment could be made. Representative Wilson did not want it added to the fiscal note. However, she suggested that his staff might want to talk to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD). What she had seen in some of the fiscal notes was that the department had already had done some of the work regarding inflation. It was a mathematical computation and would not take extra money. She did not want to encourage another fiscal note. Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 129 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 129 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with an "amend" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from DFG; one new indeterminate fiscal note from the DOA; and one previously published zero fiscal note: FN4 (DPS). 2:45:22 PM AT EASE 2:45:26 PM RECONVENED